When will indyref2 happen?

[BFTD]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

So you seriously think it's not only possible, or probable but obvious that in a hypothetical scenario where the clear majority of Scots registered to vote vote Yes in a non-section 30 referendum, there is broad support for both the referendum process and independence amongst the Scottish public and institutions, there is acceptance amongst the international community, opposition parties at WM, the general population of rUK, and the police basically say it's nothing to do with us, you think Boris would just send the troops in and that would be that, even if it become obvious that would lead to widespread violence?

That's about as far as we need to go with that very long sentence, as the situation I described doesn't show a clear majority of registered Scots voters voting for independence.

Westminster, with the support of Unionist voters in Scotland, will ensure that situation never arises. As Stinky Bone says, it shouldn't matter, but it will be used to justify any arrests and violence that would follow.

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, BFTD said:

That's about as far as we need to go with that very long sentence, as the situation I described doesn't show a clear majority of registered Scots voters voting for independence.

Westminster, with the support of Unionist voters in Scotland, will ensure that situation never arises. As Stinky Bone says, it shouldn't matter, but it will be used to justify any arrests and violence that would follow.

It wasn't what you described. You said the majority of unionists refuse to take part. I'd agree that any non-s30 referendum that sees widespread unionist non-participation and doesn't get a majority of registered voters voting Yes means a dead end.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Gordon EF

[git-intae-thum]

All this begs the question of how do we become an independent nation if Westminster does not coalesce?

 

And it is pretty obvious they are not going to coalesce.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BFTD]

3 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

It wasn't what you described. You said the majority of unionists refuse to take part. I'd agree that any non-s30 referendum that sees widespread unionist non-participation and doesn't get a majority of registered voters voting Yes means a dead end.

Sorry, by "a referendum that they refused to acknowledge", I meant a referendum that wasn't sanctioned by the government in Westminster. Which would, of course, come with the encouragement that Unionists should stay at home to avoid giving it legitimacy.

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, BFTD said:

Sorry, by "a referendum that they refused to acknowledge", I meant a referendum that wasn't sanctioned by the government in Westminster. Which would, of course, come with the encouragement that Unionists should stay at home to avoid giving it legitimacy.

Yeah, but what I mean is if on the day of a referendum, it 60% of the population support independence and 90% of them turn out and vote Yes then the threshold of 50% of registered voters voting Yes would easily be passed, no matter what unionists did on the day. I think that would matter, even if it was a non-section 30 referendum.

[BFTD]

5 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

I disagree.  If the english registered political parties and unionists decide to boycott a referendum, one that has been held by the democratically elected people of Scotland, it cannot be a dead end.  It must result in Independence for Scotland or the whole pretence of democracy in this so called uk is a sham.  Which I know it is. 

I wouldn't disagree with that either. Once again, it doesn't matter.

6 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

All this begs the question of how do we become an independent nation if Westminster does not coalesce?

And it is pretty obvious they are not going to coalesce.

It seems the only option that might work is the nebulous "legal means". Christ only knows what that entails. Hopefully we'll find out.

If that isn't successful, I think this is going to take a very long time, and will likely involve Westminster being embarrassed internationally by their lack of interest in democracy.

[BFTD]

10 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Yeah, but what I mean is if on the day of a referendum, it 60% of the population support independence and 90% of them turn out and vote Yes then the threshold of 50% of registered voters voting Yes would easily be passed, no matter what unionists did on the day. I think that would matter, even if it was a non-section 30 referendum.

That's an interesting question, but unfortunately that's not where we are in terms of support for independence.

I'd also be surprised if Westminster did anything other than say, "LALALA NOT LISTENING NOT A LEGAL REFERENDUM", considering their complete reliance on this "once in a generation" garbage.

5 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

Renounce section 30 process.

SNP manifesto focuses solely on an Independence referendum if re elected.  (Only on Independence, nothing else)

If SNP re elected, hold the referendum without westminster interference.  (Would be great if we could get EU supervision)

Negotiations with westminster begin. 

I'd love to live in that world.

[BFTD]

Just now, Stinky Bone said:

What do you think other nations did?  Stood back and waited for Independence to come to them.  Come on Dave, I thought you were cleverer than that. 

Most of them had wars.

At that point, you've just lost public support for independence, I'm pretty sure.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

All this begs the question of how do we become an independent nation if Westminster does not coalesce?
 
And it is pretty obvious they are not going to coalesce.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Acquiesce.

[BFTD]

On the other hand, if anyone fancies joining me on the coach down to London, I'm more than happy to murder Boris Johnson.

But that's only because law of averages dictates that he probably shagged my wife and/or mother.

[Gordon EF]

19 minutes ago, BFTD said:

That's an interesting question, but unfortunately that's not where we are in terms of support for independence.

I'd also be surprised if Westminster did anything other than say, "LALALA NOT LISTENING NOT A LEGAL REFERENDUM", considering their complete reliance on this "once in a generation" garbage.

I know. But we're talking hypotheticals here.

Public and international perception and weight of opinion absolutely do matter here. If Westminster truly believed they can just keep saying No in perpetuity and nothing would happen, they'd be acting very differently to how they are right now. Both the Scottish and UK government are keeping their cards very close to their chests on what steps they would take after a potential pro-independence majority in 2021 and for good reason. The UK government are being very careful to imply they can just refuse a referendum without outright saying that because they know it would likely lead to resentment against them and a softening of views towards independence. If you're utterly convinced that Scottish independence cannot happen, that's not something you'd be particularly bothered about.

[welshbairn]

33 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I know. But we're talking hypotheticals here.

Public and international perception and weight of opinion absolutely do matter here. If Westminster truly believed they can just keep saying No in perpetuity and nothing would happen, they'd be acting very differently to how they are right now. Both the Scottish and UK government are keeping their cards very close to their chests on what steps they would take after a potential pro-independence majority in 2021 and for good reason. The UK government are being very careful to imply they can just refuse a referendum without outright saying that because they know it would likely lead to resentment against them and a softening of views towards independence. If you're utterly convinced that Scottish independence cannot happen, that's not something you'd be particularly bothered about.

Agreed, and that's why following the constitutional route until it hits a brick wall of absolute refusal is essential. The thing that worries me is people here saying they might not vote SNP this time around, either because they're not going fast enough or because they're mismanaging Covid and they'll win by a mile anyway.

Edited January 1, 2021 by welshbairn

[Gordon EF]

18 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Agreed, and that's why following the constitutional route until it hits a brick wall of absolute refusal is essential. 

I agree and I think most of us here are broadly in agreement with that. The SNP government have to and have to be seen to be exhausting every legal, consensual avenue. If they are seen to have the moral authority to do that and Westminster just outright refuse, there's very little possibility it can't be seen as a fairly outrageous affront to democracy outside of hardcore unionist circles. That'll give the Scottish government an enormous amount of moral authority and probably drive soft Yes/Nos and undecideds towards independence.

Those getting agitated about the slow approach basically have to recognise that none of this is about people who've already decided. It's entirely about undecideds and soft decideds. If either side does anything to drive them significantly towards the opposition, it'll be a possibly fatal error.

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, Stinky Bone said:

I get the gist of your post, but my fear is that we are making a fatal error by waiting. We need a Scottish Government to deliver Independence. If we don't have one, then it makes it incredibly difficult to assert our Independence. 

Well they can't really do much until after the next Holyrood elections. The main frustration seems to be that they're not talking about how they'll respond in the event that they win a majority, request a s30 and have it denied. I don't for one minute believe they've not giving that serious thought but realistically, they'd be bloody idiots to come out and say all this right now. Firstly, they'd be telling their opponents exactly what they plan to do and tie themselves to one strategy, leaving themselves open to accusations of misrepresentation if circumstances change and they amend their plan. Secondly, whilst it would clearly get hardcore independence supporters cheering to the rafters, it likely wouldn't play particularly well with those in the middle ground at this moment in time.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

If the english registered parties choose to ignore the referendum, then that is their choice.  The people of Scotland will have spoken and any country that recognises democracy will recognise our decision.  

You are utterly delusional.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

WTF?  
Why?  Are you saying that elections in Scotland don't matter?  

I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think UDI is the way to go.

[Granny Danger]

Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think UDI is the way to go.
 

You may be right; what’s your suggestion?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I am not calling for udi though, am I.  

You have with the stream of posts before that - that is the only logical endpoint with your argument.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

You may be right; what’s your suggestion?

Agree with Gordon here - we have to exhaust the constitutional route - it's only the past year that we've seen majority polls for independence - we need to keep that going in the right direction and solidify those softer Yes votes and weaken the soft No votes.

If section 30 failed I'd be looking at the Scottish Government being as uncooperative as possible with Westminster - perhaps independence MPs disrupting Westminster etc.

Make them want to get rid of Scotland.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Ok I am tired, if you think that it is all good, then I will submit to that.  I disagree on things, but accept that I can be wrong, and dear God I hope I am. 
Happy New Year to you all, wish the best of love to you for 2021.

I genuinely believe UDI would fail.

There have been 16 UDIs since 1971 - the only fully successful UDIs (completely recognised internationally) were by Bangladesh, Croatia and Slovenia - Kosovo has only been partially successful as there are a significant number of countries that still don't recognise it.

Palestine also counts as a successful recognised UDI state but, given that large parts of the West Bank are still occupied and the Israelis control the border with Gaza I don't believe the Palestinians would say it was a success.

Out of the 3 fully-recognised UDIs, those in Croatia and Slovenia, the Yugoslav state was on the verge of collapse - the international community had no option but to recognise them as independent countries.

Bangladeshi independence was the result of a military crackdown by West Pakistan in East Pakistan on 26 March 1971 that resulted in the arrests of Bangladeshi politicians and many fleeing to firm a government in exile. 9 months of civil war followed before West Pakistan surrendered. I doubt very much that is the route we want to follow.